Winnipeg | The Forks Market | Railside at The Forks

[Biff]

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

More seems to be happening in the east exchange now, while nothing is new in the west. Pathetic actually.

Bodegoes site redevelopment, RRC Innovation Centre, 316 Ross Ave - Apartments, Market Lands Development....seems like quite a bit I would think.

[oftheMoon]

Originally Posted by Biff

Bodegoes site redevelopment, RRC Innovation Centre, 316 Ross Ave - Apartments, Market Lands Development....seems like quite a bit I would think.

Notwithstanding all the new retail/restaurants in the past 5 years or so. Kit & Ace, Lennard Taylor, Tiny Feast, Tara Davis Boutique, Across the Board Café, Albert Cocktails, Shwarma Khan, Albert Cocktails, Clementine, Little Brown Jug, Miss Brown's, Bronuts, King & Bannatyne, Parlour Coffee...

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Never understood why they hacked in a four lane divided "highway" into the Forks to begin with, that being said there are more pressing issues for Winnipeg and where tax dollars need to be spent. You don't replace your driveway when your house is falling apart!

The four lane "highway" into The Forks seems to have been designed with a vision to accommodate on-street parking. It would date back to before the parkade was built on the site and with very constrained on-site parking in the surface lots that there are now near the market. Pretty sure the original lots north of the main builds were not part of the original development.

[esquire]

^ East Exchange looks like it's undergoing a more dramatic change because it started from very little... West Exchange is a little more established so it's harder to notice what's going on there.

[oftheMoon]

Originally Posted by oftheMoon

Do you think this will only affect Israel Asper Way from York to the Forks or will this narrowing extend all the way to William Stephenson Way?

After reading more, Jordan says the narrowing will begin south of York. York Ave won't be affected but this change. Hopefully this intersection gets an overhaul also once Parcel 4 gets started up or York will really divide Railside and Parcel 4.

[Cyro]

Unexpected bit of news. Pleasant development in the overall direction things are going..


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manito...ipeg-1.4088730

[Tacheguy]

Originally Posted by CoryB

Excellent suggestion. Narrowing the roadway makes absolute sense as does removing the surface parking lot near the Market building. A better location for the parkade could be just north of the City TV building. The roadway south of Broadway going under the tracks could then be feed into the new parkade and the surface lot in the site proper turned into something pedestrian friendly, like a permanent farmers market in summer and a larger ice skating rink in winter perhaps. Too bad the hotel is located where it is or the whole area could be turned into pedestrian only.

its the merchants who want the parking. you should have seen the outcry when a few stalls were lost to build the hotel at the forks. Ray Pagtakhan was afraid to come to his office on graham avenue at the time because the pitchforks were out for him. they can be very short sighted at times..

[morty]

Originally Posted by esquire

I could not agree more. Those are treacherous for pedestrians and completely out of place in an urban setting. Frankly they're inappropriate even in suburban settings or anywhere that isn't an expressway. Who ever thought that it was a good idea to put in these slip lanes that get drivers to focus to the left when there are pedestrians coming from the right... just a terrible idea.

There needs to be a concerted effort made to eradicate the most egregious slip lanes like the one you mentioned.

The city absolutely loves channelized right turns. I think it might have to do with contracting everything out to MMM or Dillon and just rubber stamping the plans they come up with. The city went as far as to buy land to build one for EB Grant to SB Waverley during the underpass construction. It's a 50 kph to 50 kph turn in a zone with a reasonably high amount of pedestrians. No need at all, IMO.

As well, they're incredibly dumb for a bunch of smaller intersections where you have two drivers unsure of who gets priority between the left turner and the right-turner who has the slip lane with the yield.

I don't expect to see much change in a city where the only thing that matters for road design is the intersection Level of Service rating that the computer predicts.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by oftheMoon

Like this intersection is massively unnecessary for the Forks area:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.89097...7i13312!8i6656

Yeah the issue here is that everyone going north on Main uses York to get to St. Boniface, cutting through The Forks. It's terrible at rush hour. City and Forks will have to get creative as development builds north to force/encourage people to actually drive to Water/Pioneer/Stephenson (whatever it's called @ Main) and turn right, not cut through The Forks. Could be as simple as banning left turns from York onto Asper Way. [god can we PLEASE just revert all these street names]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Never understood why they hacked in a four lane divided "highway" into the Forks to begin with, that being said there are more pressing issues for Winnipeg and where tax dollars need to be spent. You don't replace your driveway when your house is falling apart!

All construction, maintenance, snow clearing, building, EVERYTHING that happens at The Forks is 100% paid for by The Forks. They do not receive government funding, the City is not responsible for their roads. It's a bad misconception and one they are always working on trying to fix. The three levels of government own The Forks, they do not pay to run it.

Originally Posted by Tacheguy

its the merchants who want the parking. you should have seen the outcry when a few stalls were lost to build the hotel at the forks. Ray Pagtakhan was afraid to come to his office on graham avenue at the time because the pitchforks were out for him. they can be very short sighted at times..

See above. People always think it's up to the City to decide what to do there, and that they pay for it.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by morty

The city absolutely loves channelized right turns. I think it might have to do with contracting everything out to MMM or Dillon and just rubber stamping the plans they come up with. The city went as far as to buy land to build one for EB Grant to SB Waverley during the underpass construction. It's a 50 kph to 50 kph turn in a zone with a reasonably high amount of pedestrians. No need at all, IMO.

As well, they're incredibly dumb for a bunch of smaller intersections where you have two drivers unsure of who gets priority between the left turner and the right-turner who has the slip lane with the yield.

I don't expect to see much change in a city where the only thing that matters for road design is the intersection Level of Service rating that the computer predicts.

It's pretty clear, people just don't know how to drive. The person with the yield sign yields. If you feel you have time to make it through, then go. The left turner has right of way and always goes ahead.

Although I do agree they are overused. But the theory behind it is that you will have vehicles stopped at the light waiting to proceed though the intersection. The right turn cut-off, as they're called, allow people to turn right while a couple vehicles are lined up ahead. If you have lots of traffic backed up, no ones turning anywhere. The new right turn cut-offs force you to stop, or proceed very slowly through. Gone are the days of the smooth traffic oriented slip lanes for any reconstructions or new roads.

[robertocarlos]

Left turner has to take the median lane and right turner has to take the curb lane.

[bomberjet]

Yup. That's one thing many people do incorrectly. Most of the time on purpose. They'll just turn into whatever lane they feel like.

As Roberto pointed out, and I'm not sure what the traffic laws are, but I think it should be legal to do that. The right turner just needs to ensure its safe to proceed. If the roadway warrants a right turn cut off, it's most likely two lanes or more anyways.

[robertocarlos]

I should have stated "should" instead of "has to". I wouldn't want to get in an avoidable accident there and then wait for the courts or MPIC to assign blame. And a transport truck or bus might have to swing wide.

[Tacheguy]

The local Parks Canada office needs to wake up! They have the only section of the riverwalk still caked in mud. Tourists were complaining about it this morning. We have had a month of basically good weather and they can't be bothered to get around to this. What a fucking embarrassment.

[bomberjet]

That's how I feel today. Pissed off and embarrassed haha

Why isn't the river walk just built up with some kind of wall already. Most of the floods will not overtop the wall. The ones that do, every decade or so, can be dealt with and cleaned up.

People could pull their boats up to it and dock at certain locations. I know we've been through the lack of boating thing recently. So much potential but we let it sit under mud.

[buzzg]

The Forks has offered to maintain the Parks Canada and Manitoba Parks portions of the trail, but they won't let them as it doesn't belong to them. It's so silly, and frustrating for them as 99% percent of people think (fairly) it belongs to The Forks. Can't fathom why you would turn down free maintenance.

[Spocket]

My guess is that it's for the same reason you'd offer it in the first place. There must be more to the story.

[CoryB]

It is likely stupid reasons like union contracts, liability for injuries and potential damage to property. If The Forks crew cleans the Parks Canada stretch of walkway and accidentally get their equipment stuck just off the trail causing ruts who pays to fix it? Or The Forks is cleaning the debris, sends a rock flying from the Parks Canada path that strikes a visitor, who has the liability, etc.

[buzzg]

There isn't more to the story. I used to work there. They've offered to even take possession, buy it, anything to allow them to just maintain the whole thing. Parks Canada doesn't keep proper equipment on site, so anytime there's maintenance needed it takes days or weeks to make it happen.

Honestly just seems like they won't part with it so they can say/brag about supporting or owning part of the trail. It's silly since the Feds are 1/3 owners of The Forks anyway.

[Biff]

I know we don't have the money for this but it sure would be nice to have as our river walk and it would never flood.

Philadelphia:



from Ryan Dravitz flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/ryandravitz/35119360286/